G.R. No. 233073 - L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc. vs. McDonald's Corp.

Antecedents and Contractual Relations
Zenaida Silver, under ZSH Commercial, won a Bureau of Customs (BOC) auction on February 10, 2005 for P5,790,100, financed by Loreto Hao under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated February 4, 2005. The MOA provided for a deed of absolute sale at P7,527,100, a 5% profit share, a 70-30 split after full payment, and expenses on Hao’s account but advanceable by Silver.
Silver executed the deed of sale, but Hao did not advance the loan. Hao instead paid the BOC directly; vehicles were released to Silver’s company and stored at the Honasan Compound in Panacan. Silver granted sales authority to Kenneth Hao via Special Power of Attorney (SPA). Kenneth allegedly disposed of 64 units without accounting; some vehicles were registered to third parties (Talattad, Macasindil).

Loreto Hao’s Counter-Affidavit
Hao recounted that Silver’s first bid was invalid; he financed the P5,791,660 bid on February 10, 2005 with manager’s checks. Silver executed a Deed of Absolute Sale and Assignment of Rights dated February 12, 2005.
Vehicles and parts were moved to Hao’s compound; Silver sold spare parts, remitted profits. A March 17, 2005 Agreement granted Hao ownership of vehicles and a P20,000 commission per unit, and Silver executed an irrevocable SPA in favor of Kenneth Hao. Silver later revoked these documents; an April 19, 2005 attempt by Silver and policemen to retrieve vehicles was repelled by Hao’s security and police officers.

Replevin Complaints and Countercharges
Silver filed replevin actions in various RTC branches. In RTC-Branch 16, Sheriff Andres seized nine vehicles; Silver’s group removed eight vehicles without court permission.
Hao filed carnapping countercharges against Silver, Sheriff Andres, SPO4 Salcedo, and others, asserting he was the rightful owner under the deed of absolute sale and assignment of rights.

Prosecutorial and DOJ Proceedings
City Prosecutor dismissed complaints on November 17, 2005. Parties filed petitions for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ).
DOJ Joint Resolution (June 27, 2007) found probable cause against Silver, Salcedo, et al. for eight counts of violating RA 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act). Informations were filed in RTC-Branch 14, warrants issued and then withdrawn upon prosecutorial motion.
DOJ Resolution (July 10, 2009) ordered reinstatement of the Informations.

Trial Court Proceedings
RTC-Branch 11 docketed the eight Informations as Crim. Cases Nos. 66,237-09 to 66,244-09. In its April 28, 2011 Order, the court issued warrants against Silver, Salcedo, and others for violation of RA 6539; warrant against Sheriff Andres deferred pending more evidence.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied via Joint Order dated September 14, 2012.

Court of Appeals Ruling
Silver and Salcedo filed a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing lack of personal determination of probable cause and questionable ownership of vehicles.
CA Decision dated August 14, 2014 dismissed the petition, holding that Judges Belo and Daray personally evaluated the prosecutor’s report, conducted a hearing, and considered supporting documents. It noted LTO certificates favor respondents’ ownership and that vehicles were under custodia legis at the time of petitioners’ removal. CA denied reconsideration on June 2, 2015.

Primary Issue
Did the Court of Appeals err in sustaining the trial court’s finding of probable cause against petitioners for violation of RA 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act)?

Procedural Issue
Did the trial court comply with Section 6(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure by personally determining probable cause before issuing warrants of arrest?